Britain First banned by Facebook

[I1L2T3]

You two seem butt hurt about Tommy being banned.

Tommy’s hate speech tweets= https://resistinghate.org/tommy-robinson-and-his-hate-tweets/

 

Case closed.

 

Now maybe the far right fan boys on this thread will actually get it.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2018 at 18:24 ----------

 

I don't know why you think I am 'butt hurt' as you so eloquently put it.

 

Do you think offensive speech should get you banned from online platforms? Perhaps we are treading on the toes of another thread with that question.

 

Are you now trying to explain this away as offensive speech not hate speech?

 

Please explain the difference.

[Robin-H]

Case closed.

 

Now maybe the far right fan boys on this thread will actually get it.

 

---------- Post added 30-03-2018 at 18:24 ----------

 

 

Are you now trying to explain this away as offensive speech not hate speech?

 

Please explain the difference.

 

To me there is a distinction between hate speech and offensive speech yes, and I think that that distinction, whilst not always clear cut, it is very important.

 

Hate speech is speech that is directly inciting people to commit violent or prejudicial acts against a person or group of people.

 

Offensive speech is anything that people could be offended by, but does not go so far as to call for violent or prejudicial action.

 

If we were to ban all offensive speech, who gets to decided what is offensive?

[I1L2T3]

To me there is a distinction between hate speech and offensive speech yes, and I think that that distinction, whilst not always clear cut, it is very important.

 

Hate speech is speech that is directly inciting people to commit violent or prejudicial acts against a person or group of people.

 

Offensive speech is anything that people could be offended by, but does not go so far as to call for violent or prejudicial action.

 

If we were to ban all offensive speech, who gets to decided what is offensive?

 

I would say that based on your definition, and given the context of Yaxley Lennon’s background what Mafya posted is hate speech.

 

His tweets can’t be considered without reference to his history, the profile of his followers.

 

They should not be viewed standalone

[Robin-H]

I would say that based on your definition, and given the context of Yaxley Lennon’s background what Mafya posted is hate speech.

 

His tweets can’t be considered without reference to his history, the profile of his followers.

 

They should not be viewed standalone

 

According to his wikipedia page, Yaxley and Lennon where both surnames (Yaxley the surname he was born with, and Lennon the surname of his stepfather). Stephen Lennon would be a more accurate name.

 

Anyway, that aside, I'm glad we can agree that there is a difference between hate speech and offensive speech.

[I1L2T3]

According to his wikipedia page, Yaxley and Lennon where both surnames (Yaxley the surname he was born with, and Lennon the surname of his stepfather). Stephen Lennon would be a more accurate name.

 

Anyway, that aside, I'm glad we can agree that there is a difference between hate speech and offensive speech.

 

I would agree that there is a difference, but certainly not that all of Yaxley Lennon’s tweets can be simply explained away as offensive.

 

There is a mix of offensive speech and hate speech. Because some of his tweets are classed as offensive it does not mean all of them are. Some of it is hate and to be honest why should twitter bother with policing that. It’s best just not to provide the platform for it.

 

I’m hoping Katie Hopkins is next.

[melthebell]

Twitter bans 270000 accounts for promoting terrorism

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/05/twitter-bans-270000-accounts-to-counter-terrorism-advocacy

 

and thats lower on the previous time.

[fill]

Just answer me this. As a passionate advocate of free speech, why do you spend most of your post suggesting that people with views that you don't like, should shut up and go away?

 

Because despite the apparent contradiction it is the only non-violent way we have to discourage those that oppose freedom of speech or those that want to stop others expressing an opinion.

 

I would prefer that it was not necessary but what is the alternative?

 

I am reminded of this which is as relevant today as when it was originally penned.

 

 

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Naive]

Because despite the apparent contradiction it is the only non-violent way we have to discourage those that oppose freedom of speech or those that want to stop others expressing an opinion.

 

I would prefer that it was not necessary but what is the alternative?

 

.

 

The alternative is to counter the arguments that you disagree with, not attempt to supress them.

 

Of course, that will require you to have some clarity of thought....

[fill]

The alternative is to counter the arguments that you disagree with, not attempt to supress them.

 

Of course, that will require you to have some clarity of thought....

 

Well that might well be your alternative and you are welcome to it.

 

But I have no concerns about my ability to think clearly.

 

Do you I wonder enjoy trying to be pedantic?

[Naive]

Well that might well be your alternative and you are welcome to it.

 

But I have no concerns about my ability to think clearly.

 

Do you I wonder enjoy trying to be pedantic?

 

It is the proper alternative. No pedantry involved.

 

If you thought clearly about it, you'd see that I'm right.